This is both my personal learning project and my contribution in the struggle to confront the ongoing Republican/ libertarian assault on rational science and constructive learning, as manifested in their malicious strategic Attacks on Science ~ A collection of articles, scientific resources, plus my own essays and indepth critique of various presentations from unidirectional-skeptics ~ Hopefully a resource for the busy, yet discerning, student who's concerned about the health of our Earth

Pages

Friday, December 16, 2016

YO, December19.US Protesters, you forgot something.

It seems to me there's a decided lack of clarity, resulting in aimless messaging. Why are you protesting? What are you protesting? What are your specific goals? If I could wave a magic wand and get someone that matters to listen, here would be my suggestions for issues that need to be explicitly focused on and enunciated. I'm no pro-writer so it's not pretty, I'm going for the thoughtful, perhaps even provocative, let others pretty it up. Come on, this is for keeps, enough patty-cake - we must step it up, or we will get crushed!

What about demanding that “Evaluation of the Objective Facts trumps Personal Faith-Based decision-making” ? What about ethics and honesty?

How about asking the question: Does American deserves a full time president, who's fully focused on leading his/her country - or a hobbyist?

How about asking the question:

"Do we want a Russian Obligate President?"

“Are we the United State of America or the Corporation of Amerika?”

What about demanding, Merrick Garland get his Supreme Court Vote January 3rd?

What about demanding, Merrick Garland get his Supreme Court Vote January 3rd? What about demanding, Merrick Garland get his Supreme Court Vote January 3rd? Over and over again! In some way that is the single most important and doable thing. If we can’t pull off that, … I shutter at the thought.

I bring this us because yesterday I listened in on a December19.US protest organizing group-call with much hope and finished feeling crushed and hopeless again. I’m sorry for being the old grump, but it was like listening in on kids planning a picnic. It was fine so far a “organizing’ stuff, but when it came to outlining the what and why of the protests, I was expecting a concise list, but there was nothing, beyond some mumbling.

Felt to me like the attitude was that, well ha, we all know it all sucks and yeah, well you know, and bad people, want them to know, and ah, that’s why we need as many there as possible... KNOW WHAT?

What is this protest supposed to accomplish?

Change anything?

Create community and solidarity?

Education someone (ourselves, opponents, on-lookers, leaders, who?)?

Demand Any Actions?

None of that was addressed at the phone call, later I double checked their (and other) websites and there too, no genuine messaging.

Just like Clinton’s prez campaign. Underestimating opponents. Thinking that going through the motions is enough. Inability to explain anything that matters to any one. Inability to confront the dirty tricks that this liberal white bread crowd so abhors.

It’s tragic how out of touch we seem to have become.

Now I’m back fearing these protests will amount to little more than exercises in venting and ‘feel good’.

A protest needs a clear message and “I hate Trump” may be clear, but it doesn’t say a damned thing and it certainly doesn’t move anything forward.

It doesn’t offer opponents or bystanders any explanation to help them understand what we are so upset about. It doesn't offer ourselves any better understanding of what we are up against these next years. It makes no attempts to change any minds. Nor does it draw any lines in the sand. Nor does it lay out any set of expectations to help guide us forward.

Allow me to repeat I could wave a magic wand and get someone that matters to listen, here would be my suggestions.

What about demanding, Merrick Garland get his Supreme Court Vote January 3rd?

What about drawing attention to,Trump’s Russian obligations and him surrounding himself with “friends” of Russia?

What about drawing attention to Trump’s myriad business entanglements with enemy nations?

What about drawing attention to the fact that Trump’s win was hinged on a campaign of malicious wanton smears based on deliberately fabricated lies? WHY HAS THAT BECOME ACCEPTABLE?

What about demanding that this election get nullified if it turns out Putin played a decisive role in election his new Obligate Presidents of the Corporation of the United States of Amerika?

What about spotlighting that self-interested Faith Based rejection of Objective Facts and Constructive Learning is an obscenely self-destructive way to operate our government?

What about demanding that “Evaluation of the Objective Facts trumps Personal Faith-Based decision-making” ?

How about asking the question: Does American deserves a full time president, who undecidedly focused on leading his/her country?

How about asking the question: Do we want a Russian Obligate President?

How about asking: “Are we the United State of America

or the Corporation of Amerika?”

What about demanding, Merrick Garland get his Supreme Court Vote January 3rd?

What about demanding, Merrick Garland get his Supreme Court Vote January 3rd? What about demanding, Merrick Garland get his Supreme Court Vote January 3rd?Over and over again! In some ways that is the single most important and doable thing.If we can’t pull off that, …I shutter at the thought.

Here’s an idea to ponder as a sort of closing act for the Obama administration and/or and opening salvo from Senate Democrats: a mechanism for confirming Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court. As we’re all aware, congressional elections in November determined the makeup of the entirety of the House of Representatives, as well as one-third of the Senate.

The Senate, of course, elects one-third of its membership every two years, such that the six-year terms are staggered among three “classes,” and two-thirds of the Senate membership remain incumbent in office even during elections and post-election transition periods.

At noon on January 3, 2017, the terms of the current members of the Senate’s Class III will come to an end. At that point, the Senate consists of 66 sitting senators, and we would ordinarily expect Vice President Joe Biden, in his capacity as Senate president (in which role he continues to serve until noon on January 20th), to begin swearing in the senators-elect of the new Class III.

Typically, the swearing-in would be the first order of business, although occasionally there are brief welcoming remarks from the Majority and Minority Leaders, the Majority Leader traditionally being afforded preferential recognition by the presiding officer. That is, he gets to speak first, if anyone has anything to say before things get started.

But when Biden looks out over the Senate floor—in what will likely be one of his last official acts—he’ll see 66 currently sworn and serving senators, 34 of whom will be Democrats, two who are independents, and 30 who are Republicans. At that moment you might wonder, then, just who constitutes the “majority,” and therefore who the Majority Leader actually is. In fact, as the numbers tell us, Democrats will make up the majority of the Senate, and their leader might arguably be entitled to preferential recognition.

This situation has surely occurred before. It’s just never mattered. And so in all likelihood, absent some other plan, we would expect Biden to afford that privilege to Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the current Majority Leader, who’s expected to continue in that role in the new Congress.

Suppose, though, that there is another plan. Suppose Biden instead chooses to recognize the sitting Democrats as the majority, that being the then-current truth of the matter? And suppose, therefore, he chose to recognize the Democratic floor leader first?

Now, we all understand that Chuck Schumer of New York is slated to become the Minority Leader in 2017. But at that point, he’s merely one of the 34 senators-elect waiting to take the oath and begin his term. Dick Durbin of Illinois is, at that moment, the highest ranking Democratic floor leader. So suppose Biden were to recognize Durbin first, and grant him the floor for opening remarks?

(Would that be fantastic to see, the Democratic Senators actually mustering the cojones to do this and stand behind it with defiance, pride and patriotism. Now that would be a genuine shock across the Trump Team’s bow.

If not for that all important Supreme Court than for what Mr. Senator?

America is supposed to be a nation of check and balances!

I understand absolutist Republicans wish to nullify all those so they can continue with their personal God’s Plan - Will our Democratic Senators demand we retain some check’n balances?)

___________________________________________________

Additional reading:

To Save the Country, the Senate Must Vote on Judge Merrick Garland

July 25, 2016

__________________________________________________

Can Merrick Garland Still Become Supreme Court Justice? Democrats Have A Few Loopholes At Their Disposal

President Obama's pick for U.S. Supreme Court justice may very well have waited the better part of year just to be replaced by a nominee chosen by President-elect Donald Trump. But can Merrick Garland still become a Supreme Court justice? Technically it's possible, but judging by the state of the Senate, Garland's chances are extremely slim.

Garland has waited for his confirmation to the Supreme Court for more than eight months, which is more than double the time of his longest-suffering predecessor. And, in that time, Garland has not been hearing cases due to the possibility of having to hear those cases while serving on the Supreme Court.

In two appearances on cable TV Thursday night and Friday morning, the Oregon lawmaker said that he and those on his side of the Senate aisle “will do everything we possibly can to block” what he called the “theft” of the opportunity to pick the replacement for the late Justice Antonin Scalia.

President Obama’s nomination of Judge Garland was made on March 16, and thus has been waiting for any sign of Senate action for nearly eight months. Senate GOP leaders have said the Scalia replacement must be made by the president elected on November 8.

The new administration, taking office in January, “has no right to fill” that seat, Markley said on MSNBC Thursday night. …

It is the US Senate’s constitutional duty to provide “advice and consent” on the president’s nominee to fill a Supreme Court vacancy. In 1916, the nomination of Justice Louis Brandeis by President Woodrow Wilson took 125 days to reach a Senate vote. Ironically, the nomination of Justice Brandeis was so controversial that the Senate held hearings on it — the first-ever for a Supreme Court nominee.

Now, the Senate is denying such hearings to Judge Garland. Judge Garland is a highly respected jurist with unprecedented bipartisan support and more judicial experience than any nominee in history. He received the highest possible rating from the American Bar Association, which noted that “not one person uttered a negative word about him” in hundreds of interviews, and said he “displays the temperament, integrity and professionalism necessary to serve on the Supreme Court.”

Yet even he can’t get a hearing, never mind a vote. … __________________________________________________

1 comment:

I sent December19.US an email to share this posting and hopefully shake 'em up a little bit.If nothing else it would really be wonderful to see the "Demand Merrick Garland Vote Jan 3rd" gather real momentum.__________________________________________________________________________________________________________TO: hello@democracyspring.org

Dear December19.USLet me start by apologizing for being the party @¶*%!, but someone needs to do it.

I listened in on yesterday's 9pm phone call, wasn't able to get the CHAT feature to work for me, but I took notes. Please understand I am on your side - however, I have issues with how are going about this. I wrote the following post early this AM and cleaned it up a little a couple hours ago.

Please take the time to read it and share - you folks need to step outside your own bubble, the game has changed big time, and we are up against patently ruthless people, what didn't work pre 2016 election catastrophe, isn't going to be helping us today. Gotta step it up!

RECOMMENDED WEBSITES

11/29/2016 I started this blog to debate climate science contrarians, I've done my part, they, the intellectual cowards for their part have run off and hide within their hermetically sealed echo chambers, safe to continue broadcasting more stupidity mixed with anger and hostility rather than constructive learning.

Now this horrendous election. Its changed everything and this blog, not sure where it's going, eventually I need to start another one, one less intent on futility reaching out for what ain't there and more focused on presenting a different perspective for its own sake, and to hell with the rest of it, it's too heart breaking.

I see Dec 19th as a key date. If there isn't serious focused engagement of the public in numbers that surprise everyone, well the oligarch will have their way with us.

Americans need to let Trump know from the gitgo, we do not approve of his con job and he better not get too crazy because he's earned zero good faith or honeymoon considerations. We shall see.

{edited 12/11/2014}

I know there are too many typos, what can I say, eyes aren't what they were, I get rushed, and always did have a thing with transposing…{well, I also hated high school "english" classes... bad call that one.}. Doing the best I can with what I got. Embarrassing though it is, it's better than doing nothing. Besides, it's the issues and reasoning that we should be worrying about.

Though I'm in my own little world here, I'm also constantly learning and evolving and do get occasional feedback and when I reread stuff and find errors or omissions or garbage, I fix it. If it's major I'll acknowledge it with an 'edited' note, minor stuff I don't bother.

~ ~ ~

I hardly keep track of Anthony's latest antics (besides, with Sou on the job why bother - can't beat her insights). It's just me over here and I have more important things to do with my precious hours - still now that Anthony's luster has been wearing thin he's put his energy into discovering and honing new fresh faces to carry on the public show of the Republican/Libertarian strategic attack on science.

He seems to have transitioned into a ring-leader, perhaps mentor/coach would be better, producer? At least that's how Mr. Steele and his antics of the past year has gotten me to think about it. So in that regard this blog remains about WUWT's brand of thinking and logic and my struggle to understand the anatomy of the fraud they've perpetrated against mankind. {December 2014}

_____________________________

ok, now some recommended websites:

This blog was started in April 2013 and is written by an actual scientist so it has a refreshingly serious objective air to it, plus he does a good clear job of explaining complex issues.

Tamino, an acknowledged statistical/mathematical expert of the highest order, at Open Mind also does an excellent job of holding Anthony’s feet to the fire with clearly explained facts and math. Check it out:http://tamino.wordpress.com~ ~ ~

And of course, there is the excellent, most up to date internet depository of climate studies and information for the non-expert public.

Then there's RealClimate.org the scientist's commentary site. Run by working climate scientists intended to help the interested public and journalists sort through the complexities of the climatology. They provide "quick response to developing stories and provide the context" that is too often missing from public media's depiction. {But, you better be serious and have some real science education/understanding under your belt if you want to keep up.}

I remember back in da day, good websites/blogs were few and far between. But over the past years that's been changing to the point that it's impossible to keep up with them all. Here's an incomplete, and long overdue addition to my above list: